Appeal No. 2005-1227 Page 6
Application No. 10/099,321
art to provide a change in torque in response to a monitoring point based on a change
in angular velocity for the purpose of ensuring that an object is adequately closed and
tightened to prevent spillage” (answer, page 4), one of ordinary skill in the art would
have inferred from a reading of the Spatz patent that Spatz’s rotation of the screw
closure a predetermined angle of rotation W after a predetermined application moment
M1 has been reached is intended to ensure adequate tightening. Accordingly, it is not
apparent to us, and the examiner has not adequately explained, why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Spatz’s method so as to apply a
torque insufficient to overcome the resistance to rotation without slowing the rotation
and to use the rotational speed as a transition point to begin monitoring the angle of
rotation.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 6-8 is affirmed as to
claims 6 and 7 and reversed as to claim 8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007